Is the American left about to prioritize virtue signaling over keeping an unqualified monomaniac from a second term as president? That is what would happen if Alexander Stone’s failed attempt to create a Satanic New World Order at the Plains of Megiddo is treated as automatically disqualifying him from serious consideration as the Democratic nominee.
As shown in The Omega Code and Megiddo: The Omega Code 2, when Stone was Chancellor of the United World Union, he gathered the military forces of each of the ten democratic zones to a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon, then declared himself “King and God” on the grounds of the newly-rebuilt Third Temple in an attempt to usher in the thousand-year reign of the beast that was, and is not, yet is. This draconian policy brought unforgivable woe to all the inhabitants of the earth and sea, and it has dogged Stone’s political career ever since.
Yet America needs Stone to neither have had a perfect past on declaring war on God and unleashing biblical Armageddon, nor to “get it” 100 percent today—and neither does the rest of the world. What Americans want by overwhelming margins is a slightly less embarrassing president than Donald Trump, and fetishizing “not being literally the antichrist” above all other concerns may be antithetical to that paramount goal.
Stone, a man of wealth and taste who has seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy, arguably has a better chance of ousting Trump than does Bernie Sanders, a growly 78-year-old human being who can’t even be bothered to scrawl “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE FATHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” across his own forehead before appearing at campaign events. If only because Alexander Stone is Lucifer, son of the morning, that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof, he could easily outshine Pete Buttigieg, and maybe even Amy Klobuchar. What rationality could there be in allowing grievances over which candidate drank deeply of the wine of the wrath of the fornication of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters to dominate the primaries and ease Donald Trump’s quest for a second term? Besides, don’t you want to see Trump face off in the debates against someone with real power and money? His head will explode!
Until recently, Stone was unapologetic about pouring out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. At the Battle of Megiddo, sponsored by the Aspen Ideas Festival and The Atlantic, Stone stated, “Your people can’t fight me—no one can really. All you can do is die. Not that I mind, really, but who will I rule over if you’re all dead? Who will I punish?” On his plans for the future, he mused, “Now, I shall transform this planet into a paradise for my kind. My fallen angels will rise again. You’ve heard of the term ‘hell on earth?’ Well, this is day one of the new millennium. Starting tomorrow, it’s going to get a whole lot worse.”
Claims that these statements are “Satanic, but not in the Blakean sense, because the hallmark of true evil is not the creative energy Blake found in Milton but instead an endless tedium of human pain and suffering, like watching an evangelical movie from the turn of the millennium” are exaggerated, illustrating how heedlessly overextended certain Americans’ usage of that phrase has become. After all, nothing in Stone’s controversial address to the citizens of the African Zone suggests that he looked down on other people or thought of himself as a god:
The question is: Does the fact that Stone is obviously the antichrist disqualify him from the presidency? Here is someone who as Chancellor, taking no pay, accomplished a great deal that people on the left salute. He developed a cheap, high-nutrient wafer that could sustain an active person for more than a day. He invented a revolutionary new form of ocean desalinization that brought life-giving water to the driest of deserts. His attempt to dethrone God and reign over a millennium of unspeakable torment and wailing and gnashing of teeth for all humanity was intended as a strategy to improve the health of, primarily, angels, albeit fallen ones. He even made a serious try at learning Spanish!
For some, Stone’s plan to end the age of man and turn the planet over to his legions of demons and archdemons, plus Udo Kier, is a deal-breaker. Note how modern—up to the minute, even—it seems to disqualify Stone for one decision a long time ago to rebel against God, even if he has an accent that makes him more pleasant to listen to than Donald Trump. It’s straight from the woke playbook: To shout down Alexander Stone simply because he is Satan himself would constitute a strain of anti-Satanism that has all the characteristics of religion rather than rationality. By denouncing a candidate as formidable as Stone, people will show one another that they do not wish for themselves or their famillies to be cast alive into a lake of fire and brimstone—even on the pain of an impeached, amoral Trump having to run against a candidate who supports single-payer health care!
The truly enlightened response to any pious insistences that Stone is clearly the antichrist and no good has ever come from electing someone who is clearly the antichrist is to ask: Is it really fair to look at the ways powerful people have used their power in the past before deciding whether or not to give them more power in the future? People who say yes will reveal themselves as fringe extremists, while the rest of us—the pragmatic ones, the practical ones—get down to the serious business of governing, by which we mean trusting the antichrist to be less of a jerk this time around. What else are we going to do, vote for Michael Bloomberg?
